Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiana Lynn

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tiana Lynn

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A biography of a living person that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS sources not found. Article currently cited to directory listings, industry publicity materials, social media and similar sources unsuitable for establishing notability. Does not meet PORNBIO as the award listed is not significant and well known. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this BLP nightmare. Sourcing is not only unsuitable for establishing notability, but it is also unsuitable for supporting the article's content. With a real name connected by film database entries of dubious reliability we go on to post-porn content (some of which is derogatory) entirely based on self-published sources. In-porn content isn't much better with an extraordinary claim supported by promotional porn press. Even if we count AVN as a reliable source, it's not enough for WP:BASIC. Independent searches find only trivial coverage. The minor award win is not sufficient to satisfy PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porno actress, hasn't won any significant/notable awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the others. I deleted some egregious BLP violations based on original research, using an unreliable source to establish a "real name" and then finding all sources that use that real name to establish biographical information. This was an impermissable synthesis and invasion of privacy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sound analyses of nom and MT. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.